[OSM-talk] open data

[Richard Fairhurst]

Emil wrote:

> Andy, do you have any specific examples of where people/organisations
> can't use OSM data because of license problems?

I'm not Andy (but will try harder in future), but if I may...?

For my day job (editor of Waterways World magazine) I'm drawing a  
wall-map of all the UK waterways. We also run individual canal maps in  
the magazine every month. There's an example here:  
http://www.systemeD.net/stuff/thames.jpg

The geodata comes principally from these sources:

- my own high-res tracings of waterway lines, from the OS New Popular Edition
- NASA SRTM height data, for contours/hill-shading
- Digital Chart of the World, for built-up areas

DCW is obviously public domain. SRTM is, too, but I've processed it  
heavily to get contour lines rather than spot-heights. The traced  
waterway lines are my copyright, I guess.

It would be good, though not essential, to use a small amount of OSM  
data so we could show motorways faintly on the map.

CC-SA means that, if we do that, the three sets of geodata above need  
to be released as ShareAlike. OSM gets the waterways and the contours.  
I have no problem with that.

CC-SA also requires that the completed map itself - i.e. my  
cartographic interpretation - needs to be released as ShareAlike.  
There is no way I can convince my boss of that. Other publishers/boat  
hire firms/etc. can (and will) lift the map, selling it themselves or  
using it in their own magazines. Consequently we'll sell a whole heap  
less. It isn't worth it just for a few motorways.

Now, I really wouldn't be so arrogant (no, honestly!) as to suggest  
that OSM should change licence just for my benefit. If the greater  
good of OSM is best served by an uncompromising CC-SA licence, then  
people like me should go whistle. OSM should do what's best for OSM.

But in this case, I don't think that OSM gains from insisting that the  
finished map is shared alike - it loses out because it doesn't get the  
waterways or contours. However, it does OSM a lot of good to insist  
that the _geodata_ is shared alike (and I'll happily concur even  
though my own beliefs are pro-public domain/BSD).

Consequently I'd vote for a better ShareAlike licence - one that  
doesn't class artistry as a derived work; and, as you say in your next  
mail, one that expressly says that taking points isn't a derived work.

A bit more here:
http://www.systemeD.net/blog/entry060613093350.html

cheers
Richard